What do pit-bulls and freakish right wing religious nutjobs have in common? They can be your best friend one minute and then bite you in the ass when you look at them the wrong way. Apparently that’s what’s happening in conservative circles these days.
God, I love the British. Here’s a story about a guy in England who had already lost his license so in a bid to make lemonade with a few lemons he took cash in exchange for pleading guilty for other peoples’ driving violations. When someone would get caught speeding by one of the gazillion traffic cameras in England they would pay this dude to take the rap for them. He got caught after pleading guilty fifty times over six months.
My favorite part of the story is that the people who paid him have been pleading guilty to charges of “attempting to pervert the course of justice.” I guarantee you that if this had happened here in the states the charges wouldn’t have sounded nearly so, well, perverse.
If I’d known you could get away with this kind of exercise in academia I might have tried a little harder to stay between the ivied walls. I don’t know if I’m more impressed with the fact that the author of the paper could get credit for exploring the implications of the f-bomb or that he could get away with a four letter title: Fuc- (I’ll let you guess the fourth letter). Following is the abstract for the piece (please note that since this a family blog and I never cuss I’ve edited out the offending word…okay, I admit it’s just because I don’t want to get inundated with a bunch of porn related comment spam):
Abstract:
This Article is as simple and provocative as its title suggests: it
explores the legal implications of the word f—. The intersection of
the word f— and the law is examined in four major areas: First
Amendment, broadcast regulation, sexual harassment, and education. The
legal implications from the use of f— vary greatly with the context.
To fully understand the legal power of f—, the nonlegal sources of
its power are tapped. Drawing upon the research of etymologists,
linguists, lexicographers, psychoanalysts, and other social scientists,
the visceral reaction to f— can be explained by cultural taboo. F—
is a taboo word. The taboo is so strong that it compels many to engage
in self-censorship. This process of silence then enables small segments
of the population to manipulate our rights under the guise of
reflecting a greater community. Taboo is then institutionalized through
law, yet at the same time is in tension with other identifiable legal
rights. Understanding this relationship between law and taboo
ultimately yields f— jurisprudence.
Who knew you could write a sentence that ends with the phrase “f— jurispudence”?
An elderly woman in England is refusing to pay taxes until the city (Derby) gets the prostitutes and drug dealers out of her neighborhood. In thinking about it I wondered what your legal standing would be if you refused to pay taxes if you could prove that the government did not deliver on the basics. I’m not talking entitlements here; I’m talking about basic health, safety and infrastructure.
For instance what if I could prove that my water service was inadequate and had been for a year, even after I complained? Or that the police did not provide enough services to my neighborhood as compared to comparably sized neighborhoods across town? Or that the roads and sewers were not maintained properly leading to polluted waterways, flooded roads, roads that caused severe damage to vehicles, etc.?
Can the government be held responsible for not providing basic services? Can we refuse payment until said services are delivered? Or, if after paying can we petition (i.e. sue) to get a refund?
Just wondering.
So I’m closing in on 40 and apparently that fact has caused me to jettison my normal attitude of indifference towards my health. The result is that I’ve had my first physical in years and I’ve begun to listen to my wife about my supposed issues which led me to voluntarily participate in a sleep study on Monday night. Here’s what I’ve learned, first from my physical:
This is what I learned from my sleep study:
I wish I’d taken a camera with me to have my picture taken with all the stuff plastered on my head. I looked like something out of a bad 70s sci-fi movie.
The final analysis is that it looks like I’m healthy as a horse which is a good thing. Knock on wood. Luckily no one has looked into my mental fitness…yet.
Malcolm Gladwell has a short post about executive pay that is interesting in and of itself, but the comments on the post contain the most interesting information. A PERFECT example of how the blog platform can be so effective for sharing information.
Here’s what Gladwell posted:
After
reading the article in the New York Times yesterday on the hundreds of
millions of dollars in compensation given over the past few years to
the CEO of Home Depot, I ran across this: in 1949, the highest paid CEO
in America was Charlie Wilson of General Motors, who earned $586,100 in
salary, bonus and stock. That’s roughly equivalent to what some of the
better-compensated CEO’s are making today.But what did Wilson pay in taxes? $430,350.
Times have changed.
Some commenters were questioning whether the tax rate could really have been seventy-something percent and others pointed out in1949 the top tax rate was indeed 82.13% and it went up to 92% a couple of years later. Yikes!
The commenters also debate whether or not CEOs should make so much more than the average worker, why the US was so economically well off in the post-WWII era, and a few other interesting tid-bits.
A couple of weeks back I wrote that during my family’s recent trip to DisneyWorld I noticed that there were a stunning number of perfectly able-bodied and LARGE people renting motorized wheelchairs (or scooters or whatever you call them) and creating traffic jams in the parks. Well, I wasn’t the only one who noticed. Check out this piece in the Guardian written by a bemused British travel writer. Here’s a sample:
After a couple of days, though, I had begun to fear I could sense pure sugar coursing through the veins of everyone in the park. It was possible to hire buggies for toddlers. You could also hire motorised wheelchairs. Many enormous people wearing gargantuan shorts opted for the latter to propel themselves between fast-food franchises. It was,
on the plus side, a very long time since I had been on holiday and felt relatively thin and fit. As the week had progressed, I had become uncomfortably obsessed with the sheer scale of some of the sugar-seekers, slugging at their quarts of Coke, every bit as
extraordinary a sight as a six-foot tall duck or a pair of enormous chipmunks.I had started fearing for the load-bearing capacity of the rides; the queues seemed to be getting longer because everyone was squeezing vast buttocks into two or three seats. The previous two evenings, in a bid to avoid fries and induce sleep, we had found ourselves mainlining plastic cups full of crudites in the hotel bedroom, and trying to sell the idea as a family picnic.
It gets better so I encourage you to read the whole thing.
This story is like something out of a Carl Hiaasen or Elmore Leonard book. A guy named Dom Perignon Champagne was killed in a couple of years ago in a shooting that was apparently gang related and involved an ex-Navy marksman. Dom’s mother’s name is Perfect Engelberger. You really can’t make stuff like that up.
============================================
Now you can get a business degree right from the comfort of home thanks to the online business degree programs that are offered by many business administration centers of colleges and universities worldwide. As more people get business administration degrees through the Internet having an online business degree is becoming more reputable.
============================================
In April I wrote a blog called Bad Business at Greensboro’s Bistro Sofia, and it referenced a blog post by a woman named Sarah Jones in Greensboro who had a negative experience at Bistro Sofia which included some alleged anti-semitic comments by a waiter and a bunch of other stuff. My main point in writing the post was that it was amazing how the woman’s story spread thanks to her blog and the fact that it was noticed by a prominent blogger named Ed Cone and then picked up by at least one other blogger in another town in the region (that would be me). I also pointed out that since Google loves blogs my post might get a high ranking for the search term "Bistro Sofia." Sure enough a month later that post now comes up third with that keyword. Which is why I eventually came to the attention of Kerrie Thomas, the restaurant’s general manager. He left a comment on the post and that started a very good email correspondence between us.
Long story short I was not at the restaurant and I don’t know which version of the story is most accurate, but I wanted to say that Kerrie has made a very smart business move by addressing the issue (not wishing it away) and his correspondence with me has been very professional and, I think, forthright. Kerrie wrote a letter to me explaining their stance on this issue and I am posting it below with his permission. I think it offers a good lesson in modern PR for any small business.
I’d also like to say I’ve learned a valuable lesson myself. Sometimes I feel that I’m writing this only for my own entertainment and for an audience of a few friends and family. The truth is that I never know who’s reading and I have to be careful how I write. After the correspondence with Kerrie I realized that I neglected to say that the events described were alleged to have happened. Ed Cone, who is a professional journalist, didn’t make that mistake and I consider it a valuable lesson learned.
So without further ado here’s Kerrie’s letter. I think it’s worth the read:
To Mr. Jon Lowder:
From Kerrie Thomas
As
briefly as possible I’d like too address the issues raised in the
blog you reference on your sight. I feel it is critical to note
that the story we know is in stark contrast to the one we read.First,
the remark made to the couple by their server (and it is our contention
that the exact words of the exchange were quite different than what
has been asserted) was, regardless, poorly chosen and unfortunate. Their
server, even as he recounted the details of their evening, was unaware
that he had in any way offended them and most certainly hadn’t intended
to come across in such a way as to do so.It
is also important to note that when the remark was brought to my attention
by Mrs. Jones that evening (when she called in reference to the charge
amount) and I asked her what he said that might have been “off color”,
she said that it was a conversation for another day. I immediately apologized
for whatever it might have been and promised to speak to their server,
Joshua, about it at the end of the evening. I also asked if we had taken
care of her otherwise, to which she responded that the food was wonderful
and everyone was really great (or something to that effect).When
Mrs. Jones emailed the owner, Beth Kizhnerman, the following morning
and we were apprised of what she thought Joshua had said, along with
several pages detailing her entire experience from the moment she walked
in, Beth responded with a written apology. She assured her it was a
misunderstanding, Joshua was truly sorry and that he felt awful about
it.Second
is the issue regarding the charge amount. When processing the Jones’s
card, Joshua hastily and unwittingly added an extra digit to the amount.
When it was brought to his attention, he apologized, immediately adjusted
the transaction to the correct amount. Then, he informed the Jones’s
that if they view their account online, the original “charge” will
show up as an authorization amount but will disappear after a couple
of days. Also, if the hold on the account might cause any problems (the
bank will treat that electronic contact from our processor as a hold
regardless of it being adjusted on our end) she should call them, the
bank will then call us and it will be eliminated. It was obviously an
honest mistake and he instructed them on how to properly take care of
it were it to become a problem.When
Mrs. Jones called soon after their departure that same evening, I was
as yet unaware of anything going awry at her table and thought we had
a good rapport through the evening. She said that they enjoyed their
meal but didn’t think it was worth the $1200.00 that she was viewing
online in her account. Well, of course not. I assured her that we certainly
would not process her card for that amount and it would be taken care
of (not knowing it had already been adjusted). She said it was a debit
card and would cause all sorts of problems. Therefore, I said she would
have to call the bank to have it cleared from her account (because it
isn’t possible for me to discuss her account with the bank). I also
said, reassuring her, that if in fact she had any problems, incurred
any charges or fees whatsoever; we would completely take care of them.
(Conveniently absent from her story). I’m also sure that I apologized
for the error. A few minutes later the bank called to confirm the error
and the authorization amount was cleared.I
did follow up with Joshua at the end of the shift and asked him to recount
exactly everything he said to the table. It was not in a threatening
way and he had no reason to not speak truthfully to me, especially since
he had no idea what “off color” remark he might have said.
In the recounting, yes, I realized what she would have been taken aback
by regarding their exchange and I let him know then that it could easily
have been misconstrued. It was careless and he needed to apologize.
I told him that when we invite them back in, he would be taking care
of them and buying them dinner. To which he said, of course, he would
be glad to.I
made a note to call her back the next day to follow up on what she had
said about an “off-color” remark. That call, of course, was preempted
by the lengthy morning email Mrs. Jones sent to Beth.The
incongruity of the story is so striking because her version is hyperbolic.
A wonderful experience/a horrible experience. Characterizations
of our attitudes or about any pretension are just nonsense. Yes, errors
were made by us, they were apologized for multiple times and they were
fixed. Beth apologized to Mrs. Jones in response to her email because
Mrs. Jones sent the email to her personally. There is no higher authority
to apologize to her than the owner. Mrs. Jones at that time seemed satisfied
with the response from Beth and if she wasn’t, she most certainly
could have told us otherwise.Beth
and I have both since emailed Mrs. Jones personally regarding her disseminating
the story. She has yet to respond, save to say on her blog that she
received a couple of “ugly emails” from Bistro Sofia. That
is neither a fair nor accurate characterization of them but, once again,
good storytelling. We noted in the posts to Mrs. Jones’s blog many
hateful, inflammatory remarks about our restaurant by people who don’t
even know us and similarly disparaging remarks in subsequent broadcast
emails by folks referencing the blog. An alarming bit of brouhaha over
a single dining experience, especially considering the unadorned story
and the many apologies made to Mrs. Jones. We are nothing like the picture
she paints; it’s a shame that she doesn’t recognize it.Since
you were referencing it in your blog we thought you should know this.We’re
an independent, hard working, conscientious, honest, caring group of
people (and anyone familiar with the restaurant is well aware of it).
And, ironically, the restaurant is Jewish owned. We can’t speculate
on Mrs. Jones’s motivation but we hope she will reconsider keeping
that entry on her blog.Please let me know if you have any
questions.Thank you for allowing me to write
you.Kind regards,
Kerrie Thomas
General Manager
Bistro Sofia
Postscript:
It might be important to note that Mrs. Jones says that while checking
her account later she thought we didn’t charge her at all and then
a couple of days later we did. In fact, nothing else was done regarding
the charge after my conversation with her and the bank the night she
was in. It was normal bank processing after that.
